Question, rephrased: how else do you interpret The Constitution except via “original intent” of the Framers? [FN1] Some want our country to return to a “happy”, albeit, imaginary time, stuck in the jurisprudence of 1787. A short answer is: we do that every day. A longer answer: 1/10

In very few cases is interpretation of any provisions of the seven Articles of The Constitution, as signed on 9/17/1787 by 36 of 39 delegates present in Philadelphia, at issue. Several reasons can be cited, but the Framers intended that The Constitution be subject to Amendment. 2/10

When an imbecile (Beckwith) says we need to look to The Framers’ intent, his ignorance of the text of The Constitution is glaring & his ignorance of its history is a given. No one doubts the efficacy of The Bill of Rights, contained in the first ten amendments. 3/10

Our governments, both national and State, changed significantly with time, amendments, and lives lost. Slavery ended, de jure, in all the States w/ratification of Amendment XIII. Concepts of governmental powers were massively changed by Amendment XIV. 4/10

We can look to the authors of Amendment XIV for their intent. The Framers’ intent was that the Constitution be amenable to amendment. Substance of those amendments, e.g., women having the right to vote, is beyond what the Framers conceived. Women had few rights. 5/10

There are other problems w/”original intent” as a guide. Whose intent? The 36 delegates who signed on 9/17/1787? What of all 55 white, male landowners who were delegates and attended, at one time or another, the Convention? Prof Lindsay Chervinsky has noted if the 6/10

Framers “had agreed on everything, they would have signed all the documents. They didn’t.” [FN2] The State conventions on ratification [FN3] provide insights. While some States’ records are minimal, from North Carolina’s transcripts of both of its conventions we can discern 7/10

this country was not founded as “Christian.” [FN4] So where are we? This is the 21st Century. The Framers meant for The Constitution to be amended as necessary. A corrupt justice is a fan of “original intent,” but he would have been a slave. I wonder how many buy this crap. 8/10

Footnotes:
FN1. The distinction between founders of the country and “Framers” of the Constitution is not simply semantic. The National Archives defines the Framers as the 55 delegates who attended, at one time or another, the 1787 Convention. “Founders” includes everyone. 9/10

Footnotes:
FN2. Lindsay M Chervinsky, “Why ‘The Framers Never Intended’ Is Garbage,” Imperfect Union, Aug. 2021.
FN3. Elliot’s Debates, vols. 1-5.
FN4. Id., vol. 4. 10/10